Page "The Mismeasure of Man" Paragraph 11

In a study published in 1988, John S. Michael reported that Samuel G. Morton ’ s original 19th-century data were more accurate than Gould had described ; that " contrary to Gould's interpretation.

Morton's research was conducted with integrity ".

Nonetheless, Michael's analysis suggested that there were discrepancies in Morton ’ s craniometric calculations.

In another study, published in 2011, Jason E. Lewis and colleagues re-measured the cranial volumes of the skulls in Morton's collection, and re-examined the respective statistical analyses by Morton and by Gould, concluding that, contrary to Gould's analysis, Morton did not falsify craniometric research results to support his racial and social prejudices, and that the " Caucasians " possessed the greatest average cranial volume in the sample.

To the extent that Morton's craniometric measurements were erroneous, the error was away from his personal biases.

Ultimately, Lewis and colleagues disagreed with most of Gould's criticisms of Morton, finding that Gould's work was " poorly supported ", and that, in their opinion, the confirmation of the results of Morton's original work " weakens the argument of Gould, and others, that biased results are endemic in science.

" Despite this criticism, the authors acknowledged that they admired Gould's staunch opposition to racism.